Friday, March 25, 2011

Did Christ hunger and thirst as God, or only as Man?, On the Gospel for the 3rd Sunday of Lent

3rd Sunday of
Lent, John 4:5-42

The disciples urged him,
“Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not
know.” So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him
something to eat?” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one
who sent me and to finish his work.”

Our
Savior was truly tired, hungry, and thirsty as he sat upon the well of Jacob. The
Gospel narrative makes it clear that this exhaustion resulted from bodily
weakness – for Christ truly did suffer in his body. However, we may question
whether, beyond this bodily hunger and thirst, there may have also been a
spiritual hunger in Christ. Did the Lord “thirst” spiritually? And, if he did
suffer this spiritual hunger and thirst, to what was it directed? For what was
our Lord thirsting when he said to the Samaritan woman, Give me to drink?

Moreover,
we must carefully consider (maintaining all piety and reverence), if there be
any sense in which Christ our God suffers thirst and hunger according to his
divine nature. Is the Eternal Word thirsting? Does the Son of the Father hunger?
And, if so, what is his food and drink?

How Christ was hungry and
thirsty in his humanity

While
we must assert without any hesitation that the Word truly did unite to himself
a full and complete human nature, it is nevertheless something of a surprise
that this nature could suffer the bodily defects of hunger, thirst, and exhaustion.
What a wonder it is that God incarnate should suffer!

Christ
the Lord enjoyed the beatific vision throughout his whole life, but (according
to a divine dispensation) the glory of this vision remained only in the highest
part of the soul and did not pass to the soul’s lower faculties, nor less to
the body. Thus, it was not until after the Resurrection, when the glory of the
beatific vision transformed also Christ’s body, that our Savior could no longer
suffer from any physical pain, nor from hunger, thirst or exhaustion. Hence, we
rightly conclude that (at Jacob’s well) Christ was hungry and thirsty in his
humanity, according to a physical suffering.

Moreover,
we may be so bold as to claim that Christ suffered also a spiritual hunger and
thirst – for this metaphorical use of “hunger” and “thirst” denotes intense
desire and hope. Our Lord surely hoped and longed for his Resurrection, but he
also greatly desired the suffering by which he would redeem us. Likewise, we
say that the Lord had a true hunger and thirst for righteousness – as he perfectly
fulfilled all of the beatitudes. In this sense, according to his human will,
Christ hungered to fulfill the will of God – which is his own divine will.

Going
yet further, we will allow even that Christ the Lord suffered a spiritual
hunger and thirst not only in relation to God, but even in relation to
humanity. Here we recall the words of Mother Teresa (which are themselves deeply
rooted in the thought of Thérèse of Lisieux), “Until you know deep inside that
Jesus thirsts for you – you can’t begin to know who He wants to be for you. Or
who He wants you to be for Him.” When the Lord asks the woman at the well for a
drink, he thirsts more for her salvation than for water.

This
is a point which we must emphasize: Our Savior’s spiritual hunger and thirst is
far more intense, and even more painful, than the physical hunger and thirst he
endured. Indeed, the physical sufferings which Christ bore (terrible though
they were) brought with them some degree of relief, since he knew that by his wound
his hunger for our salvation would be satiated.

And,
while it is true that, having risen from the dead and received his glorified
body, Christ can no longer suffer any form of physical hunger or thirst; it may
be possible that our Savior still has a certain type of spiritual hunger and
thirst for the salvation of the world, a hunger that will not be satisfied
until the end of time, when the full number of the elect shall rejoice in the
glory of the Lord. We are, of course, speaking by way of analogy and according
to an extended metaphor, but it may not be too much to claim that, as Christ
(while still on earth) hoped and longed for his own Resurrection (the passing of
glory from his soul into his body), so too even now our Savior hopes and longs
for the Day of Judgment, when the glory of the Head shall pass fully into the
members of his Mystical Body as they are raised incorruptible.

Could Christ hunger and
thirst in his divinity?

Let
us be very clear: God cannot suffer from any physical or spiritual pains. The
Lord God now, always, and forever enjoys the perfect fulfillment of all
beatitude – for his joy and happiness is the perfection of his own Essence.
There is no sense in which we can claim any formal or literal hunger in God
(not even of a spiritual sort). Thus, if we ask whether Christ hungered and was
thirsty in his divinity, we seek only to discover if there be some analogous
way in which we may speak of a divine hunger or a divine thirst.

We
enter the realm of metaphor, leaving behind all univocity. Yet, even stressing
this point – that we speak analogously and according to a figurative metaphor –
there is still grave danger of blasphemy. So, again, we assert that the
Almighty has no need whatsoever of any creature; therefore, he cannot be said literally
to thirst or hunger (even spiritually), since this would denote a defect in
God.

The divine hunger and
thirst of the Eternal Word

While
we assert that there can be no literal or univocal sense in which we speak of
the Almighty as having “hunger” or “thirst,” we may nevertheless affirm (by a sort
of analogy) that God does have a true hunger for man’s salvation. Indeed, if we
separate hunger from every notion of physical defect (and even from any sense
of spiritual longing) – affirming that the Lord enjoys complete fulfillment and
perfection in himself – we must nevertheless assert that God truly loves
humanity, indeed he loves all creation. The Love of God is such that he seeks
us for our benefit, not his own – and hence, the divine hunger and the divine
thirst is a desire only to quench the hunger and thirst which man has for God.
This is why Christ our Savior said to the woman, If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee,
Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have
given thee living water.

The
spiritual hunger and thirst which man has for God comes from (and is created
by) the prior (and analogous) hunger and thirst which God has for man – In this is charity: not as though we had
loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a
propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

How
can we fail to see this divine thirst in the words of the prophet Hosea?, Because Israel was a child, and I loved him:
and I called my son out of Egypt. [...] How shall I deal with thee, O Ephraim,
shall I protect thee, O Israel? [...] my heart is turned within me, my
repentance is stirred up. (Hosea 11:1,8)

And
what shall we say of the tenderness with which the Bridegroom claims his Bride
who fills his hunger and quenches his thirst?, I am come into my garden, O my sister, my spouse, I have gathered my
myrrh, with my aromatical spices: I have eaten the honeycomb with my honey, I
have drunk my wine with my milk. (Canticles 5:1)

Does the Son hunger for his
Father?

Finally,
we consider whether the Son (in his divinity) may be said to hunger for the
Father. To put the matter more clearly: Does the divine Son receive his divinity
from the Father?

On
this point, with some trepidation, we look to the early Christian theologian,
Origen of Alexandria. Obviously, there is grave danger in citing Origen’s
thought, especially in regards to Trinitarian theology – since is it quite
certain that his doctrine entails a form of subordinationism (claiming that the
Son is less than the Father). However, in commenting on this verse, the
Catechist of Alexandria offers some insight.

Origen
carefully considered Christ’s words, I
have meat to eat, which you know not. [...] My meat is to do the will of him
that sent me, that I may perfect his work. (John 4:31,33) It seems that the
Word of God not only receives his daily sustenance from God in his humanity,
but that there may be a sense in which it can be rightly said that, in his
divinity, the Son receives his meat from the Father.

The
Son is God, precisely as begotten of the Father. The Father is God, precisely
as begetting the Son. Yet, from the Forth Lateran Council, we know that the
Divine Essence does not beget, nor is it begotten. Hence, we must affirm that
there is no “God” outside of the Father who generates, the Son who is
generated, and the Spirit who proceeds from both. There is no Divine Essence
which is behind or above these Three, but the Essence is the Persons, as the
Persons are the Essence – God is the Three and the Three are God.

Now,
the Son is God as begotten of the Father, but the Father is God as begetting
the Son. Thus, the Son is passive in his relation to the Father, while the
Father is active in his relation to the Son – the Father gives, while the Son
receives. Hence, it is proper (by way of analogy) to speak of the Son as having
a hunger and thirst for the Father, though one ought not to consider the Father
as hungering or thirsting for the Son.

And,
as the Relations in the Most Blessed Trinity are the cause of all created relations,
it may not be too much to claim that the hunger which the Son has for his
Father is incomparably greater than the hunger which man has for God, including
even the hunger which the Man Christ has for God his Father. This divine hunger
and thirst, that mysterious and ineffable interchange between the Father and
the Son, could this be the very Person of the Holy Spirit?

10
comments:

@Nick,I would say "as a lover HIS beloved"...traditionally (and biblically) the soul is represented as feminine and God is represented as masculine. The "lover" is masculine, the "beloved" is feminine.

Christ hunger and thirst : according to Saint Maximus ( in EP.I . Dionysii) three distant kinds of activity can be distinguished in Christ ( the divine or purely divine activities, the human activities ,the mixed activities) for this posting ,the focus is on the human activities of Christ. The God - human ( Theandric activities) f fundamentals catholic dogma ( page 149) .recommendation for reflection catechism # 1809 and # 2341 ( 6 commandment ) the virtue of chastity cones under the cardinal virtue of temperance which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason. Peace to all, thanks Guerline

@Anonymous (8:41 and 8:49),I simply cannot understand the point you are trying to make...your English is unintelligible. If it would help to write in your own language (if it is other than English), please do... I can read Italian and Spanish well. French, so so. For other languages, I can use an online translator.

In any case...we need to be careful about jumping too quickly from Christ's actions in his humanity to speculations about his divinity. For example, Christ slept, but there is no sense in which we may say that God has a divine sleep ("he neither sleeps nor slumbers Israel's guard")...Also, Christ died...but there is no death of divinity.

Even in the case of thirst...it is only in a very analogous sense that we venture to speak of a divine thirst...

When preaching, do you (or ought the homilist) be careful to point out the the divine thirst is only thirst by analogy?Or to the point, would you raise any flag at a statement such as: "God thirsts for souls! Let us seek to satiate His thirst for our souls by in turn acknowledging our need for His life and love and asking Him for His living water in our lives."

This is an admirable piece, one that elaborates a point made by my pastor this morning: Christ thirsts for our salvation, just as He thirsted for the salvation of the Samaritan woman.

As a professor of philosophy, however, I offer one small caveat about language. Reginald rightly notes that when we speak about God, "we leave behind all univocity." But he goes on to equate the "univocal" with the "literal" and to suggest that "analogical" can be understood as "according to a figurative metaphor."

Now, some Thomists speak of metaphor as a type of ("improper") analogy. But in a case of proper analogy the relations among the meanings of a term are grounded in relations in reality, rather than in the imagination of the writer.

This distinction sheds light on a difference between two of Reginald's subsequent examples. When we speak of God's "love" for mankind, we have in mind a real relation(called "proportionality") between the divine and the human case; and thus we have genuine analogy. But when we speak of the divine "thirst," the term is used metaphorically--for, as the author earlier noted, "God cannot suffer from any physical or spiritual pains."

I believe this point is important, especially in an age in which many theologians regard all language about God as "symbolic" (or ("metaphorical"). Philosophy in the perennial tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas continues to offer theologians a principled way toward a more robust analysis.

@Tribes Superbia,I suppose that, when we speak of "thirst for souls", we are already very clearly in metaphor and analogy...."spiritual thirst" is already metaphor.

Yet, even more so when we speak of a divine thirst -- since, thirst is for something outside of oneself, but God is fulfilled entirely in himself; and all things exist in God (by participation in him).

Still, in a homily, I don't think that the same precision is necessary as in a journal article or a book...

so...I myself don't have any real problem with that line... given that the homilist doesn't present it as a strictly literal fact... [after all...St. Therese used to speak this way...]

@John W Carlson,Indeed, there is much more that could be said about language and the Thomistic position...

For one thing, St. Thomas includes metaphor under the literal sense of Scripture...For another, we are already speaking analogously and metaphorically when we speak of the human "thirst" for God...thus, any talk of a divine thirst is a analogy from a metaphor...

In our day, as you rightly mentioned, there is grave danger for theology...since many people seem to think that theology is merely a type of poetry...hence, certain schools (most notably of the Nouvelle) are able to say really crazy things... How many times Balthasarians have complained against my critiques, saying "It's poetry..."